throwk8s

In the future, artists and bands will be obsolete, there will just be music. To some extent this already happens, where tracks get copied, passed around and re-mixed so much that no one knows who did them.

But does it matter that the category of "active managers" achieves near-parity (after costs) with index funds if you're not able to maintain a running bet on the whole pool of active managers (i.e. you have to pick one or more specific managers)?

For instance, if today's active managers always lose their asses to new active managers arriving tomorrow, then any active manager you actually give your money to today is going to do way worse than an index fund, not just somewhat worse due to costs.

The set of active managers actually available at a given moment in time might be 100% long-term losers.

Is the math meaningful though?

I don't think it's incumbent upon Apple to invent a new set of tools for self-service repairs.

Assuming these are the tools they actually use, rather than a cumbersome set they invented just to be insufferable, then making the tools available seems like a fair way to (reluctantly) satisfy the right-to-repair demand.

I think a better indication of whether they're really honoring the right to repair is if they keep doing things like inventing new screws that existing tools can't open. Time will tell.

They were cousins on paper. Given the breeding history of the European nobility, they may have been near-clones as a result of pedigree collapse.

The volatility of cryptocurrencies makes shorting them risky. Even if the eventual value is zero, they might go up to any arbitrary number between then and now.

It is how the CEO himself described it:

"I did personally guarantee three quarters of a billion dollars and I’m personally liable for it."

And it is how the title of the article expresses it:

"Better.com CEO Vishal Garg says he is ‘personally liable’ for $750M SoftBank loan"

All depends on what one is used to. On Linux I've had to fight with window borders so narrow by default (on whatever Ubuntu Studio uses) that they practically couldn't be resized. You had to aim at like one pixel. I read somewhere that a window could be resized by holding Alt and clicking with the middle mouse button... but on a Mac you never need to hold down keys and have a three-button mouse to do something that basic.

If the solutions are indeed overly complicated, then eventually natural selection will weed them out, assuming that eventually the supply of money funneled into these things becomes limited. There's a precedent for this in the way that mid-2000s startups eschewed the heavyweight J2EE and/or "object request broker" architectures for simpler HTTP calls.

But whether or not they're overly complicated, I think the reason why these things are grating is because they're less fun than coding up solutions to problems 15-20 years ago. Configuring containers is a pure exercise in versioning hell, and with the emergence of devops, it's impossible for developers to avoid.